July 12, 2004

Add this to your list

from - smijer

If you are among those who operate in some part on a mythology driven morality, then there is a pretty good chance that you can add at least one of these two ideas to your list of moral issues you are wrong about. Specifically, you are likely to believe that it is wrong for a woman to act as her husband's equal in household authority. You may not be one of those who excuses or engages in outright abuse because of your moral blindness, but your attitude is demeaning toward women nevertheless. If you are a woman who has that attitude, then doubly shame on you, for you are a traitor to your sex.

Sean makes the observation that religious liberals would find a work-around for this particular value. Good for them. If you put your morality first and adapt your mythology to fit it (whether you do so consciously or otherwise), then you will likely never fall victim to Abraham's great sin: you will likely never find yourself choosing obedience over righteousness. As Sean points out, this does make the moral aspects of your mythology sort of redundant, but a good believer will find that putting morality first can be construed as interpreting scripture "in the Spirit" (or some such prattle), and still find a way to attribute their understanding of right and wrong to the invisible people.


Posted by smijer at July 12, 2004 06:39 PM

Are we talking equality-equality, or equity-equality? If you are talking equity-equality (peers) then I can agree. If you are talking equality-equality, then you are deluded by your own humanistic mythology. Men and women are not physiologically suited to identical roles.

univar.jpg Posted by Phelps on July 12, 2004 08:12 PM
Link to comment

I'm talking equity equality... as in, the word "should" doesn't belong in a sentence about women being subservient to their husbands, as per the scripture in question.

I am not talking about equality in the mathematical sense of "identity". There are obvious organic difference between males and females. There are also differences in tendencies toward certain psychological traits, though there is no universal difference in actual psychological traits (in other words, it would be possible to find two pairs, one opposite sex and one same sex, where the opposite sex pair was closer on any arbitrary psychological trait than the same sex pair.)

So, I guess we agree on that... and it only took us about a half year to find a point of agreement. Not, bad, I don't think...

univar.jpg Posted by smijer on July 12, 2004 08:19 PM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.